Jury finds all members of Wildlife Refugee Standoff, NOT GUILTY - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51288727]what relevance does that have?[/QUOTE] the bureau of land management rioted because cops were grazing on black people, remember?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51288727]what relevance does that have?[/QUOTE] Another incident of a protest where some people got violent and stole things. Just pointing out the hypocracy here where people are OK with calling one a protest, but not another.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51288932]Another incident of a protest where some people got violent and stole things. Just pointing out the hypocracy here where people are OK with calling one a protest, but not another.[/QUOTE] Is anyone okay with calling the Ferguson funtimes anything less than riots, though?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51288932]Another incident of a protest where some people got violent and stole things. Just pointing out the hypocracy here where people are OK with calling one a protest, but not another.[/QUOTE] People weren't "okay" with the looting going on in Ferguson though? Well, except for the ones profiting from it. This is in no way comparable to a protest that was hijacked by rioters as this "protest" was a threat of violence from the get-go. They were all gun-ho and ready to shoot at any Federal officers who tried to remove them, and their reason for occupying land they had no right to wasn't even fucking legitimate anyway.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51288738]Because that's not illegal?? Obama's one good legacy with me is that he made firearms completely legal on all national parks, and most federal lands.[/QUOTE] [I]completely[/I] legal? do those laws cover using those firearms as a deterrent against arrest? do they cover using those firearms to forcibly occupy land?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51288932]Another incident of a protest where some people got violent and stole things. Just pointing out the hypocracy here where people are OK with calling one a protest, but not another.[/QUOTE] but its completely irrelevant and it doesnt excuse the actions of these hicks

[QUOTE=hexpunK;51288946]People weren't "okay" with the looting going on in Ferguson though? Well, except for the ones profiting from it.[/quote] And I don't think anyone is "ok" with the guy who got violent or the person(s) who stole in this case either. [QUOTE]This is in no way comparable to a protest that was hijacked by rioters as this "protest" was a threat of violence from the get-go. They were all gun-ho and ready to shoot at any Federal officers who tried to remove them, and their reason for occupying land they had no right to wasn't even fucking legitimate anyway.[/QUOTE] They used an alternate method to ensure that their voices got heard. They didn't kidnap anyone or take anyone hostage. As for "occupying land they had no right to", you don't have the right to shut down a highway, but people will still defend that. And the legitimacy of their protest doesn't matter. The first amendment does not have a legitimacy clause to say if a protest is valid. These guys ARE a bunch of idiots, but let's not pretend that the main reason people on here wanted to see them locked up is because they have the wrong political beliefs.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51289019]you don't have the right to shut down a highway, but people will still defend that.[/QUOTE] You really don't, though. Whenever highways are shut down, the general reaction from everyone who's not a complete idiot is to criticize the people involved and their cause for being complete shitheads. Sure, people who agree with both the cause [I]and[/I] the methods will defend it, but then again; the same happens here. Just look at JoeSkyLynx being a right-wing nutjob with a boner for insurgency and general anti-government shenanigans, and what do you know, he defends these people. Who belong to the right wing. And perform anti-government shenanigans.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51288932]Another incident of a protest where some people got violent and stole things. Just pointing out the hypocracy here where people are OK with calling one a protest, but not another.[/QUOTE] except you can't paint all the ferguson protesters as rioters and looters, but you CAN paint all of the wildlife refuge dolts as armed thugs taking property by force because that's literally what they are. unless you can somehow prove that every single person who protested in ferguson during the riots eventually committed a crime, then i'm sorry to tell you but you have a serious case of false equivalencitis

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51289019]These guys ARE a bunch of idiots, but let's not pretend that the main reason people on here wanted to see them locked up is because they have the wrong political beliefs.[/QUOTE] they broke into a property that wasnt theirs, they stole what they pleased, threatened to shoot people, and assaulted others

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51289116]they broke into a property that wasnt theirs, they stole what they pleased, threatened to shoot people, and assaulted others[/QUOTE] Occupy did, too.

[QUOTE=Ridge;51284670]Sure, what else you got? The gravel road they laid down? Or the wire fence they cut?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51283114]The Malheur Wildlife Refuge buildings are sited over a (formerly) undisturbed burial ground. [del]They dug that shit up with a backhoe to make a hole to shit in.[/del] They trashed the building and allegedly stole computers and cash and other valuables. They took down security cameras, damaged native artifacts that were located on-site [I]with the friendly cooperation and permission of local native bands[/I], and [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge#FBI_investigation_of_scene_and_damage_to_refuge"]generally fucked up the place like total slobs[/URL]. [URL="http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/refuge-employees-break-their-silence-on-armed-occupation/"]Their occupation blocked essential work on maintaining the refuge and could have caused real setbacks and damage to the park and surrounding area.[/URL] [QUOTE]Foerster and the current refuge employee expressed concern about the damage that could happen to the refuge and the relationship with surrounding ranchers if the occupation continues. The refuge relies on some cattle grazing to help maintain a healthy habitat for birds and other wildlife. In turn, the ranchers rely on the forage the refuge provides. But the problems aren’t limited to personal relationships. Workers manage water levels at the refuge using a series of dams. One of the reasons is to manage a carp population in Malheur Lake that swells each spring. Carp are an aggressive species that eat almost anything, and can hurt the ecosystem migratory birds depend on. “If we’re not able to keep up with our water delivery system then all the progress that we’ve made in removing carp from the wetlands in the Blitzen Valley will be compromised and we could lose five years of work in just a matter of a month with our absence,” the refuge employee said. If that absence continues into warmer months when the snowpack melts, it could even lead to flooding and major road damage in the county.[/QUOTE] Wikipedia's article states "Efforts to reduce the population of invasive carp in Malheur Lake are thought to have been set back by three years." They acted like deranged apes on federal land and you wonder why people give a damn? It's not an appropriate comparison to Occupy unless Occupy cut down trees, broke water mains, spraypainted buildings, and looted nearby stores, and threatened to shoot any cop who came within 2 blocks.[/QUOTE] You've got a ways to go.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51282944]It's also just [I]total coincidence[/I] that he had a pistol in the pocket he was reaching for when he was shot, too.[/QUOTE] What are you talking about, yes he grabbed his gun but this was tens of seconds after they were already shooting for effect at the car and then at him as he got out with hands up. [B]Well within the breaking distance of the car to the barricade, the car was being taken under fire...[/B] [editline]1st November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;51289116]they broke into a property that wasnt theirs, they stole what they pleased, threatened to shoot people, and assaulted others[/QUOTE] Oh that changes everything, lets just kill the bastards on sight then /s.

[QUOTE=Ridge;51289496]Occupy did, too.[/QUOTE] again, what fucking relevance does this have? if I go out and murder somebody, am I exonerated, or is the act considered not as bad because somebody else also committed a murder elsewhere?

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51290767]What are you talking about, yes he grabbed his gun but this was tens of seconds after they were already shooting for effect at the car and then at him as he got out with hands up. [B]Well within the breaking distance of the car to the barricade, the car was being taken under fire...[/B][/QUOTE] If you have your [I]hands up[/I], and the cops tell you to keep your hands up, [I]you do not reach into a pocket[/I]. [B]That's a threatening act and he knew it.[/B] Let's not ignore the statements he made for two weeks about refusing to be taken alive. This was deliberate provocation.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51290850]If you have your [I]hands up[/I], and the cops tell you to keep your hands up, [I]you do not reach into a pocket[/I]. [B]That's a threatening act and he knew it.[/B] Let's not ignore the statements he made for two weeks about refusing to be taken alive. This was deliberate provocation.[/QUOTE] They were already shooting him at that point.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51290905]They were already shooting him at that point.[/QUOTE] Yes. Because he left a vehicle out of view of officers without being told to do so; [I]after fucking ramming a officer to the ground[/I]. That is clearly a situation where you'd expect the subject to be aggressive. Then he puts his hands up, and the shooting stops. He gets to walk for a while with hands up, then puts them down to reach for his gun again, and gets shot like the idiot he is. [editline]1st November 2016[/editline] Because it just pisses me off so much that some of you idiots still think he was shot while surrendering, you can have the Wikipedia-description, citing a total of 9 different sources in this paragraph alone: [QUOTE]When Finicum's truck became stuck in the snow, he immediately exited the vehicle, [B]just as two shots were fired by an FBI agent. One shot struck the roof of Finicum's truck and the other went wild[/B].[27][33][34][35] These shots became the subject of controversy because the FBI agents initially failed to disclose them.[33] Meanwhile, Finicum moved about in the snow, alternating between holding his hands above his head and seemingly reaching into his jacket, where officers later found a loaded semi-automatic weapon.[36] OSP officers and FBI agents armed with rifles positioned themselves along the road, while an OSP officer, who had holstered his firearm and equipped himself with a nonlethal Taser X2, walked toward him from the treeline with the intention of subduing him. As Finicum moved his hands down, he turned towards the approaching taser-holding officer and repeatedly yelled, "You're going to have to shoot me!" The troopers believed Finicum to be armed and considered his hand position to signal an imminent threat to the life of the taser-holding officer; Finicum was holding his jacket with his left hand and reaching for a pocket with his right hand. [B]Two troopers fired a total of three times[/B], and a third who was about to fire held back, realizing a fourth shot was not needed.[/QUOTE] Five shots were fired by the FBI. Two after he ran down an officer and exited a vehicle out of sight, a clear dangerous situation, then three once he tried to draw a weapon on the officer coming to do an arrest. He was not 'wildly gunned down' by a barrage of gunfire or anything like that. He was not being shot at when he had his hands up. He posed a threat, received gunfire; stopped posing a threat, didn't get shot at, then posed a threat again and got fucking shot for being an idiot and drawing a gun on an officer.

[QUOTE=Riller;51290963]Yes. Because he left a vehicle out of view of officers without being told to do so;.[/QUOTE] he was already being shot at at that point. the first bullet lands on the truck when the approach the barricade but well within breaking distance

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51291030]he was already being shot at at that point. the first bullet lands on the truck when the approach the barricade but well within breaking distance[/QUOTE] He had already driven away from a police roadblock without authorization; this was the end of a pursuit. Shots were not fired until he had already demonstrated an unwillingness to cooperate after spending weeks establishing himself to have an unpredictable psychological profile and a desire to martyr himself instead of facing consequences. He was uncooperative and armed. Stop defending him as if he's the innocent victim of gun-happy cops.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51291030]he was already being shot at at that point. the first bullet lands on the truck when the approach the barricade but well within breaking distance[/QUOTE] When he was [I]speeding towards a manned roadblock, yes.[/I] Cars can be weapons too, and he was driving one right at the police with no sign of stopping. Fucker played the stupidest game and won the stupidest prize. [editline]1st November 2016[/editline] And again, he was not getting shot at once he had gotten out of the car and had his hands fully raised in surrender. It was only when he decided to go 'lolnope' and draw a fucking gun that anyone was actually hurt. The police did everything they could to bring him in peacefully, in spite of having literally hundreds of situations where a shot right through his face would have been perfectly justified use of force.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51288688]......Ferguson......[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Ridge;51289496]Occupy did, too.[/QUOTE] Pretending for a moment that these little quips are in ANY way relevant to the situation at hand (they are not), you realize that the violent subset of protestors at all of these events [I]were arrested, charged, and in many cases convicted of crimes[/I], right? With much less evidence, to boot. Those who went unpunished in those events did so because of a lack of evidence, not because of a stacked jury being fed a line about evil Obama forcing patriots to stand up and be heroes.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51291729]Pretending for a moment that these little quips are in ABY way relevant to the situation at hand (they are not), you realize that the violent subset of protestors at all of these events [I]were arrested, charged, and in many cases convicted of crimes[/I], right? With much less evidence, to boot. Those who went unpunished in those events did so because of a lack of evidence, not because of a stacked jury being fed a line about evil Obama forcing patriots to stand up and be heroes.[/QUOTE] Except this wasn't a stacked jury? It was an overreaching prosecutor trying to bring charges he couldn't prove beyond the shadow of a doubt. So this was a lack of evidence for the charges that were brought.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51291769]Except this wasn't a stacked jury? It was an overreaching prosecutor trying to bring charges he couldn't prove beyond the shadow of a doubt. So this was a lack of evidence for the charges that were brought.[/QUOTE] hey what about the property they broke into, the people they attacked, the other ones they threatened (using firearms), the stuff they stole, and the things they damaged?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51291775]hey what about the property they broke into, the people they attacked, the other ones they threatened (using firearms), the stuff they stole, and the things they damaged?[/QUOTE] Such is the magic of coercion. The government wouldn't play ball and identify their informants, which the defense proved they had. So the informants could not be compelled to testify whether they convinced these morons to do what they did, and thus, the prosecution couldn't escape the reasonable doubt standard because it was reasonable to think that the informants may have had something to do with it given the testimony of the only one they could find. Or the jury nullified to spite them for pulling this stunt.